Washington lawmakers expect to pass an initiative out of committee Friday allowing police to initiate a car chase if they suspect a person in a car has broken any law, significantly loosening regulations around police pursuits. If the Legislature passes the initiative, which they look likely to do, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to expand their use of pursuits beyond just the most serious crimes. Lawmakers previously sought to restrict police car chases due to their often deadly consequences. Studies show that in recent years such chases have killed on average two people per day across the US.
At a joint House and Senate committee hearing Wednesday scheduled to discuss Initiative 2113, staff explained that it would allow police to start a car chase if officers had any reason to believe the person violated any law.
Several lawmakers asked staff some pointed questions about the bill to highlight the dangers of police pursuits, referencing a new investigative report from the San Francisco Chronicle.
The Chronicle’s reporting found that the number of people killed in police pursuits soared in recent years, with 2020 and 2021 being the “deadliest on record.” The investigation also showed that pursuits were four times more likely to kill Black people than white people, and that statistic held true “whether the person is a suspect, a passenger in a fleeing vehicle or a bystander.” When reviewing police pursuit cases where a person died, the Chronicle found that the vast majority people died over “traffic infractions, nonviolent crimes, or no crime at all.”
Right now, Washington law prevents vehicle pursuits over low-level crimes like these, but libertarian hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, the financial backer of the initiative, told lawmakers the state needed to relax standards for police pursuits because cops feel disempowered to chase people.
Heywood pointed to an incident on Tuesday where someone allegedly raped a woman in a bathroom at Bellevue College. He said police at one point believed they saw the suspect in a car, but they felt they couldn’t chase the person. Sen. Jesse Salomon (D-Shoreline) pointed out that the current law allows police officers to pursue if they have a reasonable suspicion the person committed a sex offense or a violent offense, and so Heywood’s example “doesn’t square with what the law is.”
Heywood then defended his example, saying from what he understood police did not pursue because they weren’t completely convinced the driver had committed the crime and did not feel they had the authority to chase them. At the very least, the new law has “caused confusion on what people feel like they are allowed to do,” Heywood argued.
But Heywood got basically everything wrong about what happened in Bellevue, apart from the fact of a reported rape. Bellevue Police Spokesperson Seth Tyler said in an unrelated incident police spotted a stolen vehicle near the college with people inside who did not match the description of the suspect. Police tried to pull that car over and it fled, at which point police stopped pursuing. Tyler added that the Bellevue Police Department has a more restrictive policy on police pursuits than state law, and so they would not have pursued the driver regardless of whether this initiative was in place.
However, Heywood’s misinformation about how the current law let an alleged rapist go free and other false narratives around the way current laws stymie police pursuits seem to be winning the day. Despite some pushback from lawmakers in the hearing about the dangers of police pursuits, State Representative Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), who chairs the House Community Safety, Justice, and Reentry Committee, said he expects the initiative to pass out of his committee, and he plans to support it despite his past opposition to relaxing police pursuit policies. The Senate expects to do the same.
Goodman said he believed all this “police can’t chase criminals” rhetoric would sway people to vote for the initiative come November anyway. Hyperbolic phrases like that make for a much easier campaign platform than explaining to people, “Actually, cops can chase criminals, but only when they have probable cause, and it’s for a really serious, violent crime, or domestic violence, or driving under the influence.”
Goodman also said he felt alright passing the initiative because it does not change other parts of state law, such as a requirement for officers to undergo extra training to be eligible to initiate pursuits and for officers to perform a balancing test of whether they create more danger chasing someone then letting them go.
Goodman’s choice to take solace in these last vestiges of police pursuit reform seems to signal his and other lawmakers’ unwillingness to go another round on this issue. Unlike other initiatives that legislators plan to pass this session, no one seems to have a strategic plan to make changes to statewide pursuit policy next session. Of course, that dynamic may change given the high likelihood that police may end up killing innocent bystanders while pursuing people for stealing televisions if departments across the state adopt laxer policies. Maybe then lawmakers can finally create a pithy slogan to support bans on deadly, high-speed pursuits over low-level, nonviolent crimes.
This has been a HUGE issue in conservative circles for a few years now. My sister-in-law, who attends a truly dumbass “church”, has had cops come to services and talk about this on several occasions.
Democrats need to learn how to message this stuff to stupid people.
what about the other initiatives, income tax ban etc…?
“Democrats need to learn how to message this stuff to stupid people”
@1, For the general election in November very much so. “Biden’s old” “Palestinians are more important than democracy”.
‘stupid people’ = anyone I dont agree with. a great strategy to win elections. i believe Hilary tried this strategy.
‘the Chronicle
found that the vast
majority people died over “traffic
infractions, nonviolent crimes, or no crime at all.”‘
well
if Suspicion
Ain’t a “Crime”
that’s a Crime itself.
shoot ’em Up
mow ’em &
let Gawd
sort it
Out:
that’s just
Nature’s Way.
nevermind
all the Lawsuits
there’s ‘Justice’ a Comin’.
Wasn’t it just the other day prosecutors declined to charge a cop who hit and killed a pedestrian while driving 3x the speed limit? What a perfect time to give cops even greater authority to disregard traffic laws and community safety.
Our Dear raindrop. Always there with a mealy-mouthed comment.
LDS dear, of course one shouldn’t call people stupid if they are looking for their vote. But Democrats need to learn to talk to stupid people, because about a third fo the country are absolute morons. Look at the people they elect. If you think that Boebert, Gaetz, Hawley, Graham, Johnson, Paul, Taylor-Greene etc are examples of fine legislators or good Americans, then you are one of those morons.
Like many progressive polices this was a knee jerk reaction to events that happened outside the state of WA implemented without any data and then when the data later showed the assertions to be false they tried to cover it up. Here’s what actually happened, while it is true deaths from police pursuits went down those deaths were the drivers/occupants of the stolen vehicles. What is also true is that right after it passed incident of drivers fleeing from police jumped 150% and stolen vehicles increased 50%. Those vehicles of course were often later involved in smash and grab robberies. Additionally data came out that showed deaths of bystanders impacted by a fleeing vehicle actually increased. So the legislation saved the lives of a handful of car prowlers while killing more innocent bystanders and having a negative impact on other innocents who had their cars stolen and shops looted. When confronted with this data last year the head of the Senate committe Manka Dhingra refused to allow the bill out of the committee knowing the votes were on the floor to pass saying we need more time to evaluate the policy which is funny since she had no data when she passed the initial bill. She was finally pressured to let the bill come to a vote and that is how some modest fixes were made last year and why the initiative is now passing. So while TS bemoans the passage of this initiative it is a great example of bad legislation that should have never passed to begin with.
https://mynorthwest.com/3802391/police-pursuit-death-update-controversial-data/
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/wa-democrats-must-fix-police-pursuit-mistake-this-session/
@4: “the risk from the pursuit outweighs the risk from making the traffic stop required to identify and cite the driver.”
Agreed. If they can ID the vehicle (automated plate readers have much better vision than a cop in adverse situations), just impound the car. Registered owner claims not to be the driver? Fine. Then they can ID them. Because the clock on sending your whip to the crusher has already started.
It’s what we do with guns already. Your gun is evil. Turn it in so we can melt it down and the problem is dealt with.
Unless it’s an obvious case of imparement or road rage, there’s no need for a traffic stop, let alone chase. Headlight out? Turn signal busted? Expired Tabs? Enter a plate number into the computer, and it sends a warning or ticket to the person the car is registered to.
This is why I’d like to see… a bit more bureaucracy, and some nationally tallied statistics on such things as Pedestrian or Bicycle vs. Auto deaths per capita. We had many “Town Hall Meetings” a few years back because 50 ‘serious incidents’ (defined as hospitalization at least 3 days up to death) per year was too much. I believe Seattle also got an award that year for being one of the safest cities in the nation for, or all things… Pedestrian or Bicycle vs. Auto deaths per capita.
Just because some deep pockets has some sand in his shorts, doesn’t mean we have to let Police off the hook we put them on, after considerable grass roots effort.
In any case, when this hits the legislature, make sure your representative hears your opinions on this, and nip this in the proverbial bud.
@13: “The registered owner (r/o) has rights not to speak to the police under the 5th Amendment. If a statement is not voluntary, its not admissible in court.”
Of course this is true. Upon locating a vehicle used in a crime, the registered owner cannot be compelled to say anything to the police. But having been used in a crime, that vehicle is evidence. It can be impounded, taken to a police facility, dusted for prints, dissassembled to search for other evidence, etc. Eventually, this evidence can lead to the actual perpetrator and used to secure a conviction. Until this time, it must be stored (as other evidence is). Once the case is cleared, it (or its collection of parts) can be returned to its rightfull owner. And they never have to say a word to the police.